Affirmation of Reasonable Contraband Watch Practices under the Eighth Amendment

Introduction

Johnson v. Chappius, No. 24-1225 (2d Cir. Apr. 3, 2025), arises from an inmate’s challenge to an extended contraband watch at the Elmira Correctional Facility. While seeking routine medical care for asthma and back pain, Christopher Johnson underwent an x-ray that showed a suspected razor blade lodged in his rectum. Elmira officials placed him on a sixty-one-day contraband watch, which included twenty-four-hour observation, a liquid diet, and frequent medical checks, until follow-up imaging confirmed passage of the object. Johnson sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, and the Second Circuit affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeals reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. It addressed four issues:

Use of Dr. Ott’s testimony: The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing testimony from a physician not named in the defendants’ initial Rule 26 disclosures, since he was clearly identified in produced medical records.
Eighth Amendment claim: The court found no deliberate indifference. Defendants acted on x-ray evidence and maintained the watch for a legitimate penological purpose. Johnson received regular medical attention and had refused some procedures, which lengthened the watch.
First Amendment retaliation claim: Johnson failed to show causation between protected speech and adverse action. The misbehavior reports stemmed from actual refusals to comply and disruptive conduct—not from retaliation for complaints or religious beliefs.
Fourteenth Amendment due process claim: A sixty-one-day contraband watch did not impose an “atypical and significant hardship” under established precedents, and Johnson waived any novel argument by failing to raise it properly below.

The judgment of the district court was affirmed in all respects.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Summary Judgment Standard: Qorrolli v. Metro. Dental Assocs., 124 F.4th 115 (2d Cir. 2024); Anemone v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 629 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2011).
Civil Procedure—Rule 26 Disclosures: Design Strategy, Inc. v. Davis, 469 F.3d 284 (2d Cir. 2006).
Eighth Amendment: Gaston v. Coughlin, 249 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2001); Walker v. Schult, 45 F.4th 598 (2d Cir. 2022); Hayes v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Corr., 84 F.3d 614 (2d Cir. 1996); Trammell v. Keane, 338 F.3d 155 (2d Cir. 2003); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979).
First Amendment Retaliation: Burns v. Martuscello, 890 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2018); Bennett v. Goord, 343 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2003); Slattery v. Hochul, 61 F.4th 278 (2d Cir. 2023); Zalewska v. Cnty. of Sullivan, 316 F.3d 314 (2d Cir. 2003).
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process: Davis v. Barrett, 576 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2009); Wright v. Coughlin, 132 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 1998); Miller v. Brightstar Asia, Ltd., 43 F.4th 112 (2d Cir. 2022); Wagner & Wagner, LLP v. Atkinson, Haskins, Nellis, Brittingham, Gladd & Carwile, P.C., 596 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2010).

2. Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning can be divided by amendment:

Eighth Amendment

To establish an Eighth Amendment violation, an inmate must show (1) an objectively serious deprivation and (2) deliberate indifference by prison officials. Because prison security needs often justify intrusive measures, courts apply wide deference to correctional administrators. Here:

Objective prong: The contraband watch was tied to a weapon risk confirmed by multiple radiologists. The watch served to protect inmates and staff.
Subjective prong: Defendants knew of Johnson’s medical needs—he saw health professionals daily—and took reasonable steps to monitor and treat him. His own refusals prolonged the watch; there was no evidence that officials ignored risks to his health.

First Amendment

A retaliation claim requires (1) protected speech or conduct, (2) an adverse action, and (3) a causal link. The court stressed the risk of fabricated claims in the prison context. Here:

Misbehavior reports followed genuine refusals to comply with identification and x-ray procedures, belligerent language, and disruptive behavior—not protected grievances.
Johnson provided no admissible evidence that the reports were issued in retaliation.

Fourteenth Amendment

Due-process protections for prison discipline hinge on whether an inmate suffers an “atypical and significant hardship.” Absent extension of confinement beyond the original sentence, courts look to:

Impact on overall confinement length;
Conditions compared to ordinary segregation;
Duration relative to discretionary confinement.

Restrictive confinement under 101 days rarely triggers due-process rights. Johnson did not compare his treatment to other contraband watches, and he failed to preserve any novel argument below. The claim was waived.

3. Impact

While non-precedential, this summary order reinforces key principles:

Prison administrators receive deference in balancing security and inmate health.
Deliberate indifference demands proof that officials knowingly disregarded serious risks.
Retaliation claims must be supported by non-conclusory evidence of causation.
Due-process challenges to prison discipline require demonstration of an “atypical and significant hardship.”

Future litigants challenging contraband watches will face a high bar, especially when medical evidence and routine procedures underlie the watch.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Summary Judgment: A court decision made when there is no genuine dispute about key facts and one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Deliberate Indifference: When prison officials know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.
Contraband Watch: A security measure involving constant observation, often after imaging indicates hidden threats like weapons.
Misbehavior Report: A formal document charging an inmate with rule violations, which can affect privileges and disciplinary status.
Atypical and Significant Hardship: A test determining whether a disciplinary confinement is so severe or unusual that it implicates a protected liberty interest.

Conclusion

Johnson v. Chappius affirms that extended contraband watches—when based on credible medical evidence—do not violate the Eighth Amendment absent deliberate indifference, nor do routine misbehavior reports amount to First Amendment retaliation. It further underscores the rigorous standard for due-process challenges to prison discipline and the importance of preserving arguments at each stage. This decision will guide lower courts in evaluating the balance between prison security measures and constitutional protections.